abc is a Canadian company that makes metal canisters it ships worldwide. maisa is a Belgian manufacturer of titanium canister rings that ABC uses to make itsbottles. In May, Boxar emailed maisa about a custom order of canister rings with Christmas holiday decorations. maisa emailed that they could do it but would need specific designs from Boxar by June because they were running out of capacity for custom orders. Boxar sent the designs august 13 and 90% of the payment on July 15. In Sept, Boxar toldBC they needed delivery by Oct in order to make their holiday delivery date. maisa responded that they did not produce the rings because Boxar failed to deliver the designs on time and requested Boxar to resend the designs so they could see if they could produce them. Rather than send the first design, Boxar sent a new design which differed slightly.mistakenly used the first design, but produced them on a rush basis. The difference in the design did not effect the quality or safety of the product and would only be noticeable delivered them to the loading dock on Sept 30 for shipping first to the United States by a cargo ship registered in AFRICAand then AMERICA. When the cargo arrived in the United States on October 5, Boxar noted the invoice added a rush charge of $100,000 and that 10% of the shipment had a design difference. By October 10, Boxar noticed the design difference was on 40% of the canister ring shipment, but only after it had sold and shipped a large number of canisters to customers. Some of these canisters included the rings with the different design. On Oct 12,ABC directed the rest of the canister shipment to be returned and requested its money back citing the defect and the undisclosed rush charge.refused to accept the returned product but sued for failure to complete the transaction and demanded it pay the full amount of the invoice. In all of their prior agreements, they had agreed the invoice would be the only writing necessary and the invoice stated that the deal would be subject to the). is not sure about which law would control so they ask you to provide it with an assessment of the law governing this transaction, whether they can win under Common Law, UCC or CISG?